Toward a Theory of Racialized Institutional Logics in Education

Introduction

In this article, Professors Woulfin and Yurkofsky argue that frameworks guiding schools are not neutral; rather, they are influenced by dominant racial structures that uphold whiteness and ignore systemic racism. Therefore, the concept of racialized institutional logic is introduced to explain how racism shapes educational organizations. This article builds upon Victor Ray’s theory of racialized organizations. It combines insights from critical race theory and institutional theory to show how policies and practices maintain racial inequities in schools.

Their work addresses a significant gap in organizational and educational research. While research frequently documents racial disparities in education, few studies explain how deep institutional ideas and structures reproduce inequality over time. By showing how racial ideologies are embedded in institutional logics, the authors offer a tool for understanding why educational reforms often fall short and how dismantling racial inequities may require more fundamental change.

The authors of this study are Sarah L. Woulfin, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies educational leadership and policy implementation, and Maxwell M. Yurkofsky, an assistant professor at Radford University who focuses on continuous improvement and educational equity.

Methods and Findings

The authors use a conceptual approach, combining insights from research on racism, education, and organizational behavior, to build a new framework. They argue that the basic ideas shaping how schools operate, such as definitions of academic achievement, expectations around parental involvement, and preferred instructional approaches, are not neutral. Instead, these ideas are influenced by racial beliefs that favor whiteness and ignore or hide the presence of racism. They describe these patterns as part of what they call racialized institutional logics, meaning that entrenched racial structures shape the ways schools make decisions and organize their work.

Evidence presented shows that racism influences not only individuals but also the rules, policies, and goals of major institutions like markets, governments, and professions. In turn, schools borrow from these major institutions and perpetuate these racial patterns, even when reforms claim to promote fairness. For example, the use of test-based accountability systems rooted in market logics can incentivize practices like racialized triage, where educators focus on students nearest to proficiency cutoffs rather than rethinking instruction to support all students equitably. Because ideas that align with dominant racial views are more common and seen as more credible, educators often rely on them without questioning whether they reinforce inequity. This helps explain why reforms framed as neutral or fair often fail to reduce inequities; they remain rooted in dominant racial logics that go unexamined.

The authors also describe alternative ways of thinking shaped by movements for racial justice and argue that educators and leaders can strengthen these alternatives by making them part of everyday practice in schools. Examples include social justice-oriented approaches to instructional leadership, culturally sustaining pedagogies, and participatory decision-making practices that elevate marginalized voices.  

Through their framework, Woulfin and Yurkofsky argue that equity depends on changing the ideas that steer routine practice, not merely adjusting surface rules. They translate that insight into a concrete playbook for policymakers and school leaders: 

• First, scrutinize every statute, regulation, and guidance document to spot hidden racial cues, then rewrite language in plain racial equity terms.
• Second, broaden accountability so success measures include culturally responsive teaching, student voice, and family trust as well as achievement data. 
• Third, fund professional learning and shape performance rubrics around culturally sustaining pedagogy and social justice leadership until these approaches are standard rather than optional. 
• Fourth, create decision processes that grant real authority to students, families, and educators who have been marginalized. 
• Fifth, provide protected time, coaching, and resources so school teams can redesign data meetings, discipline reviews, and family conferences in ways that surface and challenge racial assumptions. 

By following these steps, policy writers can move schools closer to equitable outcomes while staying true to the article’s core insight that ideas, not only resources, shape educational justice.

Conclusions

Recommendations provided by the authors emphasize the need for researchers, policymakers, and school leaders to address the deep racial structures that guide educational practices. They advocate for amplifying ideas that center racial justice and moving beyond reforms that only target surface-level change.

In their conclusions, Woulfin and Yurkofsky reiterate that institutional logics are shaped by dominant racial frames that uphold whiteness. Recognizing and disrupting these logics are presented as necessary for dismantling racial inequities in education. Therefore, regarding interventions, the research calls for a shift of attention from individual actions to the broader structures that sustain inequality.

Lastly, the authors propose a framework for identifying and challenging the racialized ideas embedded within the educational system, a critical contribution to antiracist practice. Their approach emphasizes structural change over temporary or surface-level adjustments. Policy implications include the need to target not only educational outcomes but also the underlying racialized beliefs and structures that shape those outcomes.